Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 1.djvu/107

 ANGLESEY. 85 VII. 1710. 5. Arthur (Annesley), Earl of Anglesey, Sec. [E.1 also Viscount Valentia, &c. [I.], br. and h., Sometime Fellow of Mag. Coll., Cambridge ; A.M., 1099 ; M.P. for that University. 1702, 170") and 170S, and High Steward thereof, 1721. Took his seat in the English House, 23 Nov. 1710, and in the Irish House, 9 July 1711. P.C. [E. & I.]. Joint Vice Treasurer and Treasurer at War [I.]. On the death of Queen Anne he was made one of the Lord Justices of England until the arrival of George I from Hanover. Lord Lieut, of co. Wexford, 1727. He hi., his cousin, Mary, 3rd da. of John (Thompson), 1st Loud Haveksiiasi, by Frances, widow of Francis Wyndham, da. of Arthur (Annesley), 1st Eaiil ok Anglesey. She d. at Woodstock, Oxon, Jan. 1718. and was bur. at Farnborough afsd. Hed. s.p. 1 April 1737, ami was buried there.( ! >) Will pr. May 1737. VIII. 1737, 0. Richard (Annesley), Karl of Anglesey and Baron to Annesley, [E.] also Viscount Vai.entia, Baron MoUNTNoitms, and (5th) 17G1. Loud Altham [LI, cousin and h. iuale,('') being yr. s. of Richard, 3rd Loud Altiiam [LJ (by Dorothy, da. of John Davey), who was a yr. s. of Arthur (ilj), 1st E.uu. OF Anglesey, &e. [E.], and (iij) 2nd Viscount Valkntia, &c. [I ] He was b. shortly after 1690,( c ) became an Ensign in the army, but was struck off the half pay ill 1715, about which time, being in needy circumstances, he appears to have sought his fortune by marriage (or marriages) as stated below. On 14 Nov. 1727 he sue. bit elder br. as LORD ALTHAM [I.], and his right thereto was acknowledged by his taking his seat as such. In 1737 he sue. his cousin (as above) in the Earldom of Anglesey and other titles [K. and I.], and took his seat in England, as an Earl, 10 May 1737, and in Ireland, as a Viscount, 4 Oct. 1737. He was also Governor of co. Wexford, in which county he fixed his residence at Camoliu Park. He 7ii. 25 Jan. 1715, ,'') when he is stated to have been 21 (see "Anglesey case," 1771), at Northani. in North Devon, Ami, cja. of Capt. John Piust of Monckton, near Biileford in that co. She is said to have brought him a considerable fortune, and to have lived with him at Westminster, and at Waterford and Ross, but to have separated from lii in ill 1719 returning to North Devon, where she d. s.p. and was bur. (as Ann, Countess of Anglesey) 13 Aug. 1741 1' 1 ) at Monkleigh, Devon. According to another account,! 0 ) however, in the Battle year 1715, he Rt. firstly privately, and afterwards publicly ( with a li> . from the Consistorial Court of Dublin), Anne, only da. of John SlMi'soN, a wealthy citizen of Dublin, she being then about 15 years old. This Anne is mentioned in her father's will (who d. 1730) under the name of " Lady Altham," and was presented (after 1737) at the Vice Regal Court [I], as '•'Countess of Augle- sey."0 This Lady, by whom he had three (laughters, survived the Earl for four years, so that, if her marriage be reckoned valid, (-') it would upset both the following ones. On 15 Sep. 1711 (about a month after the burial of Anne, Countess of Anglesey first named), he m.(l') privately at his own house, Camoliu Park, abovenamed, Juliana, da. (»)See "Coll. Top. and Gen.," vii, 233. ( b ) If however the statement of James Annesley, " the unfortunate young noble- man" (who claimed to be s. and b, of Arthur, 4th Lord Altham [I.J, the elder br. of this Richard) is true, the said James (and not the above named Richard) would have been the h. male. See full account of this under " ALTHAM," page 76, note ("). (°) The Richard Annesley bap. 31 Oct. 1689, and bur. 18 Nov. 1690 at Westni. Abbey, was his elder br. ( J ) Parish Reg. produced at the claim (in 1S19) of George, Earl of Mountuorris [I.], for the Earldpm of Anglesey. (°) See Burke's " Vicissitudes of Families," 3rd series, 1863, p. S3, &c. (0 -It must be remembered however that the rival wife (Miss Prust), was also named Anne. (e) There is a remarkable document signed by this Lady, on 22 Dee. 1726, wherein she binds herself never to prosecute her husband for bigamy, which certainly looks as ii both these parties considered the marriage with Ami Prust to have been a legal one. See claim to Earldom of Anglesey, in 1819. ( h ) The certificate of this marriage was produced to the English: House of Lords on the trial for the English Peerage, but was discredited on the ground of forgery. The witness on whose testimony that decision was principally grounded was proved {uftcrmnU) to have been perjured, and the decision itself (22 April 1771), was but by a majority of one, thirteen Peers being present. In the following year, the validity